Somewhere in the gulf between America and the Muslim world there lies a deep misunderstanding.  This fact is well known to many Americans, who often use it as justification for American actions at home and abroad.  It seems fairly obvious, from the American point of view, that the Muslims who denounce America and its policy, people, or culture don’t understand what they are talking about.

Unfortunately for Americans this deep misunderstanding is in reality a mutual problem.  In fact, in all likelihood it is Americans who know less about the Muslim world than vice versa.*

It is this mutual misunderstanding that John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed seek to address in their book Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think.  What is most interesting about the book, however, is not the subject but the data used for the research.  The study is based on the latest Gallup World Poll, which looked at survey data from more than 50,000 Muslims in 35 countries.  The authors’ goal is to address many of the questions about the relationship between the West and Islam using more than just rhetoric.  As they say at the end of their Introduction: “Let the data lead the discourse” (xv).

The chapter titles of Who Speaks for Islam? indicate that the book seeks to tackle a number of very weighty questions:

1. Who Are Muslims?
2. Democracy or Theocracy?
3. What makes a Radical?
4. What do Women Want?
5. Clash or Coexistence?

The degree to which each chapter is successful varies, and in the end the book does not offer a definite answer to the question its title poses.  Yet Who Speaks for Islam? is still a must-read for anyone who truly wants to understand the current tensions between the Muslim World and the West.  It will be impossible to ever address these tensions until we understand the factors behind them and this book shatters numerous all-too-common stereotypes about those factors.

Destroying Monoliths (and Recreating Them)

Astute readers may already have noticed a flaw in my blog post: I begin by referencing the “Muslim world” as a monolithic entity.  This is the first notion that Esposito and Mogahed set out to disprove.  They point out that in reality the 1.3 billion Muslims are spread across 57 countries on every country, two major religious divisions, and the entire socio-economic spectrum, generating countless different opinions on subjects large and small.  To many Americans this comes as a surprise, despite the fact that these same Americans would protest vehemently about being lumped together with Europe in “the West.”

After this plunge into the diversity of the Muslim world, the book seeks to outline what it means to be a Muslim.  Unfortunately the very diversity the book reveals in its opening makes this a daunting task.  The first chapter thus tends to oversimplify certain aspects of the Islamic faith, but at least succeeds in laying a groundwork for later use.  (For those who seek a better understanding of Islam I recommend Malise Ruthven’s Islam: A Very Short Introduction.)

Not Mutually Exclusive

Large portions of the book are dedicated to proving that various ideas are not mutually exclusive.  While this might seem an unnecessary endeavor at first, it is in reality absolutely essential.  I have heard my own friends voice the opinion that true democracy in Muslim majority countries is an impossibility, because Islam is incompatible with democracy.

Esposito and Mogahed martial the statistical data against such stereotypes.  They point out that “substantial majorities in nearly all nations surveyed say that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech” (47).  It is important, however, to remember that democracy in the Muslim world would not look exactly like democracy in the West (and we shouldn’t want it to).  Majorities in most countries favor democracy advised by Sharia.

The word Sharia, of course, scares most Americans.  Yet when understood properly as a compass for deriving law from religious principles, Sharia is far different from the Western stereotypes of it.  That Muslims wish their sacred text and traditions to advise their laws is not different from Americans:

Ironically, we don’t have to look far from home to find a significant number of people who want religion as a source of law.  In the United States, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation.

• Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be “a” source, and 9% believe it should be the “only” source of legislation.
• Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no roll at all.  These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran. (49)

This and other examples throughout Who Speaks for Islam? demonstrate that Muslims and Americans are not that different at heart.  We all want our beliefs to inform our laws, want peace and rule of law, want good governance and the ability to speak freely.  We are all humans.  The belief that Muslims are somehow inherently different, twisted, or evil is not only wrong, it is destructive.

Myths about Muslims

The real meat of the book lies in the later chapters, particularly “What do Women Want?” and “Clash or Coexistence?”  The chapter on women and Islam is especially interesting in that it addresses one of the West’s biggest causes célèbres concerning Islam: that Muslim women are oppressed.  The data in this section surprised me, and support Esposito and Mogahed’s conclusion that Muslim women want freedom and rights, but on their own terms.  Along with the statistics, this chapter is sprinkled with personal accounts to hammer home that not all Muslim women are quiet and reserved.

In the final chapter, “Clash or Coexistence,” the book examines a number of popular myths about Islam:

• Islam is the problem
• Europe will become Muslim
• The Muslim world hates the West because of its freedom
• The Clash of Civilizations

It is unsurprising that Esposito and Mogahed oppose the Clash of Civilizations theory, especially with the data presented in the book.  When the current global tensions are seen through the lens of global polling it becomes clear that what separates people is not as much religion as human-manufactured political tensions.

This leads the authors into their recommendations for U.S. policymakers, many of which feel somewhat undefined.  Despite this flaw, they repeatedly make the key point that U.S. policy does not currently match U.S. rhetoric.  There is no easier way to lose the world’s faith and trust than to say one thing and appear to do another.

Imperfect, but Necessary

Who Speaks for Islam? ends suddenly after the fifth chapter and it feels as if the authors should have been able to produce a more detailed portrait of the Muslim world.  In addition, the book lacks an appendix  containing any of the raw data, though I assume it is available online.

Even with these shortcomings, the book should be on the short reading list of any politically or culturally aware American.  In today’s world of sound-bytes, instant news, and ideologues it is far too easy to frame a debate or controversy without truly understanding the views of the participants.  Who Speaks for Islam? provides a fascinating look at the other side of the current global tensions.  Only when we seek to understand those who are not like us can we truly come to peace with them.

* My apologies to those American Muslims who read this post and wish to object that contrasting “Americans” and “Muslims” is a fallacy.  My differentiation is incorrect but necessary for simplification of the argument.

First, Obsession begins and ends with short segments promoting the idea of Islam as a peaceful religion hijacked by radicals.  It then goes on to list radical violence around the world, from 9/11 to the London bombings to Muslim violence in Thailand, and connects the dots with one single strand: Islam.  Combined with statements made by those interviewed in the film, it becomes hard for me to give credence to Obsession’s claim that its arguments are not about Islam as a whole.  The film seems to be at loggerheads with itself about whether or not it wishes to indict Islam.

Stemming from this use of Islam as a common link between terrorist incidents around the world comes a second critique.  From a political science perspective, Obsession fails because it does not acknowledge any other sociological, economic, political, or geographic motivations behind extremist violence around the world.  Equating violence in Chechnya, which has distinct nationalistic roots, with the Shia extremism of Hezbollah or the Sunni insurgency in Iraq simply ignores reality.  Many of the Islamic groups the film links together via radical Islam would consider each other to lie beyond the pale of Islam.  Though many have adopted Islamic ideological stances or ideas from one another, citing Islam as the single motivating factor behind them all will not stand up to academic investigation.  Each group has a number of other motivating factors, all of which Obsession completely ignores.

Obsession spends almost half of its length attempting to draw a connection between the rise of radical Islam and the rise of Nazism in Germany.  While I must admit the similarities are intriguing, actually proving causality between the two would be very difficult.  Nazism rose within a well  structured political party in a state actor, as opposed to the disparate radical Islamic groups spread throughout the world.  That we should see traces of Nazi ideological fervor in radical Islam is not surprising, ideologies are constantly adopted by new groups.  This does not mean that radical Islam derives from Nazism, however.  Much academic work has traced the link between the rise of radical Islam in the past quarter century and the Communist ideology exported by the Soviet Union.  Yet Obsession doesn’t purport to connect radical Islam to Communism.  Ideologies are adopted, transformed, and manipulated for political advancement by any group seeking to advance its goals.

Radical Islam does undoubtedly pose a threat to the West.  This does not mean, however, that all radical Islamic groups are connected and jointly waging a carefully directed war against the West.  Nor does it mean that Islam alone lies at the heart of this problem, an incredibly simplistic assertion.  In the end, Obsession contributes little to any useful consideration of the problem of radical Islam.